The Foibles of Multilateralism

The Honduran delegates that arrived here last weekend to meet with members of Congress and other U.S. officials were clearly dissatisfied with the U.S. response to last month's ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Insisting they were here to defend democracy -- and not just Zelaya -- the delegates felt the Obama administration wasn't doing all it could.

"I have never been active in any political party. ... I am here to defend our rule of law that has cost us so much," said Jari Dixon, a lawyer with the Honduran attorney general's office who last year participated in a 38-day hunger strike to promote judicial independence. "It's a coup against us all," he added.

As such, Dixon and the other delegates believe U.S. officials should use all their leverage to pressure coup leaders to leave -- imposing trade sanctions, suspending all bilateral aid, freezing international reserves held in U.S. banks, withdrawing the U.S. ambassador and taking away U.S. visas.

Just as the Obama administration has gone out of its way to respond in concert with the international community and particularly the countries in this hemisphere, some long for a more unilateral stance. Such is the irony in keeping Obama's promise to foster a new era of partnership in the Americas.

In a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the central tenet of the Obama administration's new foreign policy is the "profound responsibility to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others." Clinton added that "other countries view America as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its will at the expense of their interests and our principles," making U.S. leadership suspect and subject to distrust.

Regarding the Honduran crisis, the Obama administration is taking a principled and deferential approach in its diplomacy. While Obama quickly joined the leaders of the Americas in condemning the coup and supporting the suspension of Honduras' membership in the Organization of American States, he has also kept a low profile on the issue.

Those on the ground defending Honduran democracy see this low profile as inaction. For them, time is of the essence. Every day that goes by without their elected president in power is a victory for the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, who seems to believe that he only needs to retain the presidency until the November presidential election to succeed in eliminating the threat of Zelaya.

But that's a limited measure of success. Without a resolution that appeases Zelaya's supporters -- or more broadly, opponents of the coup -- the potential for repression and violence increases. Already, many observers agree, polarization in Honduras is growing. The most recent poll conducted by Costa Rica-based CID-Gallup found that 44 percent of Hondurans have an unfavorable view of Zelaya and 49 percent have an unfavorable view of Micheletti.

Obama's deferential foreign policy also faces challenges from within Washington. By stating that the coup was legal and legitimizing Micheletti's government by welcoming his envoys, Republicans in Congress have marred the supposed united front against Zelaya's ousting.

According to Lisa Haugaard, the executive director of the Washington-based Latin America Working Group, this "concerted effort" to support the coup has been led by the Florida delegation in Congress. "It is a reflection of fear of (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez that is playing out in really exaggerated ways," she says.

Chavez, one of Zelaya's political allies, has not played a constructive role in the Honduran crisis. But these members of Congress are equally unhelpful: They dislike Chavez so much that they've accepted the forced expatriation of a democratically elected president and legitimized those behind the coup.

Perhaps the true measure of Obama's new era of international engagement in Latin America will be its effect on Venezuela. While Clinton did not refer specifically to Chavez in her foreign policy speech, she did pledge to reach out to those who disagree with the United States, despite the obstacles.

She said her long-term objective is to create "a different global architecture -- one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division."

Later in her speech, Clinton acknowledged that "cultivating these partnerships ... takes time and patience; it also takes persistence. That doesn't mean procrastinating on urgent issues." For those defending democracy in Honduras, this is not immediately evident.